Is there any particular significance in the date 30th November?
Regulation of Banks (Remuneration and Conditions of Employment) (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1976: Committee and Final Stages.
SECTION 1.
Question proposed: "That section I stand part of the Bill."
We do not know whether or not a national pay agreement will emerge and we simply wish to provide for a sufficient period to elapse in which we can see a possible national norm emerge. That is the sole significance in the choice of date.
Would the Minister like to comment on the fact that 30th November will probably be a little more than 21 days after the Dáil resumes? The Parliamentary Secretary has informed us that the Dáil will adjourn next week. If the Minister makes an order under this section that order can be opposed within 21 sitting days from the date on which it is tabled. That would probably take us close to 30th November. Why the necessity for a date if this is only a temporary measure? The 21 days will almost coincide with 30th November. There seems to be a duplication of effort here.
The 30th November was not fixed in relation to the sitting days of the House. It was fixed purely in relation to the industrial relations question, as I told Deputy Colley, and the emergence of a norm. There is no principle involved.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
May I suggest that amendment No. 2 is consequential on amendment No. 1 and that we debate both amendments together?
We have no objection to that. I move amendment No. 1:
In pages 2 and 3 to delete subsections (1) and (2) and to substitute therefor the following:
"(1) The Minister may from time to time by order prohibit the payment by the Banks to their employees of remuneration at rates exceeding the rates of remuneration provided for in the proposals for the National Wage Agreement 1976 and the making or implementation of terms and conditions of employment at variance with that agreement."
These amendments refer to a section of the Bill that we feel affects the rights of individuals and could well affect the right of a trade union to negotiate. The Minister tried to say at the end of his Second Stage summing up that this was not a wage freeze. There is no other term that can be applied to section 3. This section bears no comparison with the other two measures which were before the House in 1973 and 1975. This is where the major difference arises.
The Minister is being empowered to produce an order preventing an increase in remuneration and affecting conditions of employment. If he brings in that order he can at his discretion freeze wages to the 30th November in line with the agreement reached between the banks' staff relations committee and the Irish Bank Officials' Association, which was drawn up in mid-1975 and modified, for the most part downwards, in June, 1976. We believe, despite the fact that the banks have operated outside the terms of the national wage agreement, that they should be contained within any proposals presently carried under the national wage agreement. I am satisfied that the Minister agrees that this is the way to approach this. I am also satisfied that he was critical of the methods the Government employed, in his absence, to handle this situation. I believe, despite his statements to the contrary at the end of the Second Stage, that he obviously has no desire to be given power to introduce an order freezing wages for a selected section of the community.
On the Second Stage debate I, along with other members of this party, said that our objection was to the principles contained in the Bill. There was no inconsistency. The Minister failed to prove any inconsistency on our part. There is a distinct difference between this and the other regulations and this is what we want to change. If this is changed we are prepared to accept the terms of the Bill tying it to the proposals of the 1976 National Wage Agreement.
The Minister referred to us as a responsible party always concerned about the national interest. That is true. Our consistency in this field has been proved in the past and there is no need to spell it out in any great detail. Our commitment to the national wage agreement has always been without question. That is why we put forward this amendment. In order to do this it means deleting subsections (1) and (2) of this section, that is, eliminating from the Bill the authority giving the Minister power to freeze the wages of these employees and also the authority, if he so wishes, to withdraw from a union facilities to negotiate.
That is the fundamental position. Amendment No. 2 is to delete subsection (7), which introduces the agreement between the Bank Officials' Association and the Banks' Standing Committee, the agreement that has been referred to and adhered to in the previous two measures on bank pay, that is the national wage agreement. We want to restore this. We believe it is in keeping with what should have been introduced in the first place. If the Minister wishes at any stage, before or after the 3rd July, to make the legislation retrospective we would co-operate in that respect.
We oppose this section, and we are suggesting amendments, because it is a complete somersault for the Labour Party despite the weak arguments the Minister for Labour tried to make. It is interfering with the free rights of certain people and with the free negotiating rights of a trade union. We are prepared to agree to any other adjustments that may be necessary if the Minister accepts these amendments. We had a difficulty imposed by the guillotine. As I pointed out earlier, the reason for urgency on this Bill was not the situation that existed in the banks. There should have been an effort, through quiet negotiations with all the parties concerned, to postpone the threatened withdrawal of services next week until after a decision was taken on the national wage agreement. It was a cardinal sin on the part of the Government that they did not take every step in their power to advise all the parties concerned, use their influence and encouragement, and appeal to the patriotism of those people to prevent a strike taking place.
I am given to understand that no approach was made by the Government from the time of the statement by the Minister for Finance—a week ago—until the first placatory and conciliatory noises were made last night. It may only be a coincidence that the Minister for Labour was missing during that period but it is disgraceful that the Government did not move in that vital week. Instead of that we had a new move by an Irish Government, we had the mailed fist approach. The attitude of the Government was that they would impose orders, freeze wages, interfere with the rights of individuals and withdraw the opportunity to negotiate from a licensed trade union. This order will give such powers to the Minister. I appeal to him to accept our amendments.
These two amendments go to the root of our objections to this Bill. If they are accepted by the Minister, or at least the principle, we will have no further opposition to the Bill and we will support it fully as we have with regard to two previous Bills of this nature which the Minister introduced.
Amendment No. 2 is consequential on amendment No. 1 and, therefore, I do not think it is necessary for us to argue the case for amendment No. 2 which follows automatically if amendment No. 1 is accepted. However, it is necessary to make crystal clear what is involved.
Section 3 of the Bill as it stands entitles the Minister to make an order. The only order it entitles him to make in the first instance is an order freezing the pay of bank officials to their present level. There seemed to be some confusion about this, whether deliberate or otherwise I do not know, when this was referred to at the end of the Minister's speech concluding Second Stage. I should like to get it absolutely clear because it is not a matter on which there should be any doubt. Therefore, may I ask the Minister if he agrees that under the section as it stands if he is to make an order in the first instance it must be one freezing the pay of bank officials to their present level? Is that a correct interpretation of the section?
I will have an opportunity of replying.
A simple Yes or No is all that is required; the Minister can elaborate afterwards. So that we will not be at cross purposes I appeal to the Minister to tell me if I am interpreting correctly the section. I do not understand the Minister's approach to this. When he was introducing the Bill on Second Stage he did not refer to any section. When he was finished we asked him if he would do this but he refused. Does the Minister want us to spend all the day at cross purposes? If we are not at cross purposes, we could quickly pass the Bill, the House could adjourn and all of us could go home. If we understand the position clearly, then I think it is in the Minister's interest, in our interest and that of the public generally that what is involved here should be clearly understood.
Apparently the Minister does not want to answer the question at this stage. I put it to him before and we got a peculiar answer. However, I am putting the question again and we and many people will note his reaction with considerable interest. Section 3 as it stands provides that if the Minister makes an order under the section in the first instance—having regard to the provisions of subsection (3)—the only order he is entitled to make is one freezing the pay of bank officials at their present level. We say that is wrong. It is not the kind of power the Minister should have and it is not the kind of power he needs.
As the Minister quoted, when we were in office the attitude we took was consistently one where we said that in so far as there has to be legal enforcement it should be enforcement of national pay agreements and this amendment is designed to do that. We have consistently supported this. The difficulty is that there is not a national pay agreement in force at the moment and one has to get some norm. In this amendment we have endeavoured to provide that. We do not suggest that technically the amendment meets all the necessary criteria but since the Bill was only produced yesterday and the guillotine has been applied to it, it has only been possible for us to produce an amendment which illustrates the principle of what we have been trying to achieve and what our opposition to this Bill is about.
With the permission of the Chair, I should like to read amendment No. 1 again. It states:
In pages 2 and 3 to delete subsections (1) and (2) and to substitute therefor the following:
"(1) The Minister may from time to time by order prohibit the payment by the Banks to their employees of remuneration at rates exceeding the rates of remuneration provided for in the proposals for the National Wage Agreement 1976 and the making or implementation of terms and conditions of employment at variance with that agreement."
The proposals for the national pay agreement are known and published. That is a norm that exists. We are saying that if the Minister considers it necessary to intervene in this matter he can make an order providing that the banks may not pay more to their employees than would be allowed by that known standard, the published terms of the national wage agreement proposals.
If the national wage agreement goes through on the basis of these proposals such an officer will conform precisely to what we wish to see and what the Minister says he wishes to see. If, on the other hand, the national wage agreement proposals are rejected, then the Minister would be entitled under subsection (4) to make an order revoking that order. What steps he would take in these circumstances is another matter that we will deal with on the section but one thing is clear. In the event of no national wage agreement and in the event of the Government proposing to lay down certain norms, they cannot be applied only to the banks and not to anybody else. That would be intolerable. I suggest that this amendment meets precisely the criteria required. If the national wage agreement proposals are accepted, any order made by the Minister in pursuance of this amendment would be exactly what would be required. If the proposals are not accepted, the Minister may reject the order.
I trust by now it is quite clear to the Minister and to everybody else that so far as this party are concerned our opposition to this Bill is based on the fact that this section we are trying to amend does not provide for the making of an order tying the remuneration of bank officials to the national wage agreement. It provides for the statutory freezing of pay of bank officials to their present level. We believe that is wrong in principle and in practice. We believe also that, consistent with the two previous measures introduced by the Minister and supported by this side of the House, it is necessary and essential to spell out that it is the desire of this House to ensure as far as it can that people conform to the national wage agreement. In the event of there being no national pay agreement, that is a different situation. Presumably this Bill is being introduced on the assumption that there will be a national pay agreement. If the assumption is that there will be no such agreement, then we should not be wasting our time on this Bill.
We would have preferred to have been able to include in this amendment detailed provisions such as exist in earlier legislation with which we concurred providing for reference of these matters to the Labour Court. It was not physically possible for us to produce the detailed amendment necessary to cover that. I was interested to hear the Minister say, in replying to Second Stage, that he still has power to refer these matters to the Labour Court even though there is no reference to the Labour Court in the Bill.
I was interested to hear him saying that, because he seemed to imply he has that power under other sections, not the ones dealing with the banks, but the general ones dealing with the Labour Court. That was my understanding of what he said. If that contention is correct, I wonder why was it necessary, for instance, in the 1975 Act dealing with the remuneration of bank employees to provide specifically for reference to the Labour Court by the Minister. If that power exists anyway, I do not understand why it was necessary to include it in that Act. The non-inclusion of it in this Bill, on a well-known legal principle suggests and implies, until the contrary is proved, that the intention of the Oireachtas was not to give power in this case to refer to the Labour Court. I will be interested to hear the Minister's views on that when he speaks on this amendment.
It is a matter of some importance but it does not affect the basic principle involved in this amendment. I do not wish to delay the House unduly. I merely wish to say as succinctly as I can that this goes to the root of our opposition to the Bill. We believe an order made by the Minister should have the effect of ensuring that the pay of bank employees conforms with the national agreement and it should not be designed to freeze the pay of bank employees at their present level.
We are becoming slightly confused about what the basis of the Opposition's case is. The first information we got that the Opposition would be opposed to this measure was when we got a statement yesterday from the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party. A reason cited in that statement for their opposition was that the Bill was precipitate, selective and introduced at a time when a national pay increase norm has not yet been established. Now we are told the Opposition's case will be settled if we substitute for the section in the Bill an amendment which ties the pay rates in the banks to the national pay agreement.
That is what we have always said.
It is for the Opposition to figure out how those two statements can be reconciled. I tried to make it as clear as possible this morning that the aim of this holding operation is to ensure that pay agreements negotiated by the banks and their staffs will conform generally with the pattern of settlements emerging for other workers. Could anything be clearer as to the intention of the Government?
(Dublin Central): If they do not comply?
Deputy Colley asked in the first instance does this order relate to the present pay levels. Yes, it does.
The first order the Minister makes.
It is not the objective of the Government in this legislation to hold bank pay rates at their present level, but merely to ensure the pay rates negotiated at that level will conform with those negotiated at other levels. This is what the Opposition are opposing. We made it quite clear this was our objective. The reason we are forced to do this is that the background history of acting without this legislation shows—and Deputy Colley knows it from his personal experience as Minister for Finance——
We are not disputing the need at all.
——that only with legislation of this character in this area can we get the kind of settlements which equate with those obtained by other workers. That happens to be an unhappy fact of life. There it is and we must live with it.
Would the Minister repeat that?
It is an unhappy fact of recent industrial life that there has been a history of more State intervention in the area of bank employers and employees relations than those of any other section of industrial life. That happens to be an unhappy fact of life. I made the point this morning that this legislation was not sought by the State authorities under any Administration. It happens to have been necessary. Circumstances made it necessary as they make it necessary in this case.
It would be unfair of the Opposition to members of the Irish Bank Officials' Association to insist that they should accept the terms of an agreement which has not yet been concluded. That is what they are asking us to do in this amendment. Faced with an imminent strike on Monday, having declared that they have appealed to the parties concerned not to go ahead with that strike, they ask the Government to buy their cooperation and get us home earlier tonight by accepting this amendment. The effect of their amendment is to make the difficulties surrounding the imminent strike greater. That is the kind of opposition we are faced with.
Would the Minister explain what he means instead of abusing us?
It would be unfair to write into the legislation specific adherence to an agreement which has not yet been reached by the parties involved and to demand that as a measure of the Opposition's agreement to the Bill. Three days from a lock out of the Irish banks that is not a constructive contribution towards averting that close down.
The Minister thinks it would be better to have a freeze.
I am saying the amendment is unfair to members of the Irish Bank Officials' Association and unhelpful in present circumstances.
May I ask the Minister——
Order. Can we hear the Minister? Deputies will be afforded every opportunity to contribute to the debate.
The amendment refers to "... rates of remuneration provided for in the proposal for the national wage agreement ...". There are no rates of remuneration provided for in the national agreement. There are increases but not rates of remuneration. It would be impossible to incorporate an amendment of that kind in the Bill. I appeal to the Opposition to reconsider this amendment and to reconsider their entire approach to the Bill. We have had a long debate. The Bill has been explained to them over and over again. For the reasons put forward, I could not accept the amendment. I do not think it would be helpful to us at the present juncture. On reflection, I think the Opposition will see it does not improve the situation.
Deputy Colley asked why there was no reference to the Labour Court. Again, this relates to the absence of a national agreement. On previous occasions the court could be asked to take on a specific task. The option is certainly there to refer to the court but it may be desirable, should circumstances dictate that course, to take the option of referring the matter to a commission rather than to the court. The power is there to refer to the court and it may well be that the court would be the ideal body on the other hand, circumstances may suggest——
If the power is there, why was it necessary to provide for reference to the Labour Court in the 1975 Act?
On the previous occasions we had a given figure before us which was accepted and in force. We simply had to ask the court to examine the situation in the light of that figure.
I am talking about the legal power to refer to the Labour Court: I am not talking about the figure.
That it is not in this legislation?
It is in the 1975 Act.
I have explained that in the situation where there is no specific figure that would be accepted as the national norm, it might be more advisable, in the context of the problem as it then would be, to refer this matter to a tribunal other than the court.
For the reasons I have mentioned, I think it would be unfair to the members of any association to ask them to be bound by the terms of an agreement which have not yet been accepted by those who drew them up, and it certainly would not be helpful in the present troubled situation, some days or a weekend, as we are, away from a bank close-down, to ask the Government to accept this Opposition amendment. I think the Opposition themselves will, on reconsideration, see that it is not a constructive contribution.
Does the Minister agree that whatever is in subsections (1) and (2), there would be power to revoke whatever order is made? Therefore, the choice between this amendment and the Minister's draft is that, under the Minister's draft the order makes a freeze, and under this amendment the order allows an increase to the rates of the national pay agreement proposals. The Minister is saying, if I understand him correctly, that, from the point of view of the bank officials, it is preferable to impose a freeze than to allow an increase under the proposals of the national pay agreement. Is that what the Minister is saying to us?
What I am saying is that the Bill is seeking very simple powers. The overall objective of the Bill is to hold for whatever period is required bank salaries at their present rate to ensure the emergence of an agreement which will give bank employees an increase of the same pattern as was given to others. That is the objective of this Bill. It was kept as simple as that. The objective is to give them the same as other employees. The amendment put forward by the Opposition relates to a national agreement which has yet to be agreed upon. There was a banks JIC meeting today, resuming tomorrow, and I am asking the Opposition to withdraw their amendment.
The Minister's thinking on this issue is so confused that I am convinced he did not study the Bill before it was introduced in the House this morning. Again, to pursue the point made by Deputy Colley, the Minister is saying that it is desirable to impose a wage freeze on a certain group of people. Despite what the Minister would like to have contained in this Bill or what he may have meant to have contained in it, what is contained there is the power for the Minister to make a statutory order maintaining bank officials' remuneration at present levels. He goes on to say that our amendment is less acceptable than the proposal in the Bill. The actual wording of our amendment is not important; it was a rushed one, of necessity, because of the Government's imposition of the guillotine. Everybody knows what is meant in the reference to remuneration. However, on the proposals for a national wage agreement, is the Minister saying to one group of workers: "It is not enough to have you kept within the proposals of the national wage agreement," while he and all of us are hoping the majority of workers will accept the national wage agreement in a few weeks' time or less. The Minister cannot have it both ways.
There are two possibilities regarding the national wage agreement, acceptance or rejection. First of all, if it is accepted, it is then reasonable for the Minister to see what he would do by way of order. If it is rejected, what would he do by way of order, would he just impose an order for one section under this legislation and deprive one union of the right to negotiate in a free for all situation? Or do the Government and the Minister intend to introduce this type of legislation across the board?
To my mind, there is something slovenly about the drafting of this measure. If, as the Minister maintains, the object of this Bill is to achieve a certain purpose, why not write that purpose into the Bill? As it stands, there is no guarantee that, if the people who are negotiating negotiate the national wage agreement terms or even less than those terms, the Minister will not change his mind in the meantime. They would have to depend solely on what was enacted regardless of the obiter dicta of the Minister on it. As I see it, there is only one thing in this legislation, that is, that the Minister is fixing the remuneration of bank officials under the present agreement.
Would the Minister like to answer the question I posed to him?
For the information of Deputy Gibbons, I will explain for the tenth time today that a national agreement does not yet exist, and that in the actual negotiations we are faced with at present it would not be helpful to ask for adherence to an agreement not yet accepted by any of the parties. In industrial relations to demand of participants in a bargain that they should accept something, the spirit and the letter of which they do not adhere to, does not generally ensure a great deal of progress. I was careful to say this morning that I did not demand a replica of the national agreement in the bank situation. I accept from the bank officials and the bank authorities that there are certain unique features in the Irish banking system. All we have, at any time sought of them is that there should be conformity of a general character with the terms accepted by other workers. I think it would be unwise to depart from that path to which we have adhered. It is the most constructive way of proceeding.
The Minister did not answer my question.
What was that?
If the national wage agreement is rejected what order does the Minister then intend making under the Bill?
The position continues, the objective remains the same. This backs up the reason for not including the national agreement in the terms we have here. At that point we would have to examine the situation emerging after the breakdown or the lack of success attending the discussions on the national agreement and vote on its provisions. The Government would have to see in that situation what the norms would be then.
What the Minister is saying, basically, is that if the national wage agreement is rejected we have wasted our time here all day.
Surely the Deputy will appreciate that, whatever happens the national wage agreement, a certain pattern will emerge.
I asked the Minister a question and it was answered. What the Minister said was that this would have no bearing whatsoever if the national wage agreement was not accepted.
I repeat that the Bill is designed to ensure that bank employees get the same provisions in general terms as other employees. That is the objective of the Bill.
It may be the object of the Bill but it certainly is not as outlined in the Bill. It would appear far more sensible and far more understandable for the Minister to have tied, even in general terms, the banks' remuneration to the proposals contained in the national wage agreement. Then the Minister and everybody else would know where they stood in the event of the national wage agreement being accepted and a completely new ballgame would develop if it was rejected.
Apart from all these points, the amendment refers to remuneration and the national agreement does not deal with remuneration.
Has the Minister lost the power to change an amendment across the House?
There are more serious reasons than that.
Let us not waste time on that.
(Dublin Central): The Minister has stated that the whole purpose of this Bill is to bring the bank officials under the norm of what the national wage agreement would be. The amendment in the name of Deputy G. Fitzgerald ensures that. If there is no national wage agreement and the Minister invokes subsection (1) of section 3, which, in effect would freeze bank salaries, there is no obligation in this Bill on the Minister to remove that order. This could place the bank officials in an invidious position in comparison to the rest of the community. If there is a national wage agreement, subsection (1) of section 3 having been signed, what redress have the bank officials in relation to what the Minister would do? The Minister might say to the bank officials that because they made him sign the order he will not remove it for another six months.
These are factors that would worry a person reading this Bill. The amendments ensures that when a national norm and a national wage agreement are established the bank officials are assured of receiving whatever increases were given under the national wage agreement. I believe that there is a lot of substance in this amendment and that it would reassure bank officials. In effect, when the Minister invokes section 3 the wages of the bank officials will be frozen until such time as this section is revoked. I am not sure that the Minister may take that action, and for that reason this amendment should be accepted. The bank officials would prefer to see that amendment there than subsection (1) of section 3 where the Minister has exercised his rights.
I do not understand the Minister when he rejects this amendment. I thought that the whole purpose of this Bill was to ensure that the bank officials would not step out of line, would not exceed the national norm, when the national wage agreement emerges. As far as I can see, that is what this amendment contains. In relation to this section the danger is that when the Minister has made an Order he might be reluctant to revoke it afterwards and that is the merit I see in this amendment.
I do not think the Minister has any intention of replying to these points. I think that indicates his reluctance to accept this amendment. It is typical of his totalitarian view in relation to this legislation. This legislation is discriminatory. If the Minister were to accept this amendment it would remove to a large degree the discriminatory element existing in the Bill as it stands. As far as technicalities of the wording of it are concerned, as the Minister well knows that is neither here nor there. It does not take away from the sense of the amendment whatsoever. As has already been stated by other speakers from this side of the House, if there was no national wage agreement this amendment would not change anything. But it changes things if there is a national wage agreement allowing a certain increase, which the bank officials would not be entitled to except at the discretion of the Minister. This is a very reasonable amendment and there is no reason why the Minister should not accept it. It does not overturn the Minister's Bill completely, but it brings sanity and reason into it. That is all we are asking the Minister to accept.
I have always taken the view that Bills are not solely the property of the Executive, that they are the property of the House. I have been consistent in any legislation that I have introduced in accepting any worth-while amendments and at no stage have I felt that certain clauses were sacrosanct because they were the product of consultations between my officials and myself. My behaviour in this area has been in marked contrast to what was my experience when in Opposition, but let that be. That has been my form in regard to legislation: I have always been open to suggestions from the Opposition and I consider any that are made in a spirit of improvement and accept them without hesitation.
It is for very weighty reasons that I reject the amendment in the form put forward. We are in a serious strike situation and I do not think the suggestion incorporated in the amendment would be helpful in the circumstances. I have explained why it would not be helpful. The background history of relations between the officials and the banks suggest it would not be helpful and members of the Opposition who were aware of this problem when in Government should know from their own experience that it would not be helpful. I accept the direction of the amendment, and the spirit of the view that whatever terms emerge for the majority should also apply to bank employees. I have made it clear that this legislation is directed towards the very same goal. But this amendment would not help us to reach it. It certainly cannot help the present troubled situation. There is no difference between the Opposition and the Government, as I understand it, in our joint feeling that people working in the banking sector should get broadly the same as other groups in the community.
That is correct.
There appears to be no difference on that question. I ask the Opposition to withdraw the amendment not in the spirit of wishing to maintain the clauses as they stand but because I think that as it stands the Bill is the most effective instrument in the situation with which we are dealing and I do not believe this amendment would help.
We would like to agree but it appears to me that either this Bill got out without the Minister's approval or he is not entirely in agreement with the content of it. There can be no going back on the powers being given the Minister as Minister for Labour and this is what we object to. We object to powers being given to freeze wages in any area or in the case of any group.
I want to go back on two points, and refer to what the Minister said about our oposition as a result of yesterday's party meeting. The Minister said our opposition suggested it was selective. It still holds good despite any interpretation that may be put on it.
You also said you opposed it because no norm had yet emerged and now you wish in this amendment to say——
The Minister also said we referred to precipitating a situation. We still maintain that it did do that. Of course, we would prefer not to see this legislation introduced. The efforts should have been devoted to seeking a postponement of industrial action so as to give everybody time to cool down, to keeping the sides meeting. This is why we believe that the intervention of the Minister for Finance did tremendous harm.
I am satisfied—and this was mentioned by some speakers here today— that the approach by bank officials for the most part was one of concern for the economy, of reluctance to take strike action, of responsible patriotism at a serious time like this. But when that explosion came on Thursday night there was a marked difference in the attitude of those people. It made militants of normally moderate people.
We are now endeavouring to take away from the Minister the stigma of being a Labour Minister in this Government seeking these powers. This morning I complemented the Minister and wished him well in all sincerity but I do not think this is the type of power the Minister in that position should get whereby, if he wishes, he can bring in an order irrespective of what might happen saying: "We hold your wages from now until November 30th." The sensible remedy would have been an absolute appeal for the postponement of industrial action. Then at least the Minister would have the national norm or wage agreement or he would not and we all hope he would. At least, he would have a decision and would not be legislating in a vacuum, with action taken by a Government eagerly retreating into recess and hurrying to get away, but legislating with full knowledge of the facts. This is the mistake I have seen.
The phraseology of the amendment, we agree, may need correction and improvement and the Minister is aware of the spirit behind it. Basically, it is in line with what we have not opposed in the Minister's two previous measures. We are asking the Minister to accept this and basically it would end our objection to the Bill. It does not completely clear our criticism of the handling of the situation—which is deplorable—nor does it lessen our belief and that of the vast majority of the people that certain steps, the bullin-the-gate attitude, did cause hard line feelings. Even at this stage we will withdraw or not pursue any other objections. We will, perhaps, be critical of certain aspects of the handling of the affair but our objection to the Bill will be withdrawn if the amendment deleting the prohibition and asking that the bank officials be kept in line with the normal national wage agreement is accepted.
The more I think about this the more I am inclined to the view that the Minister is using this Bill to try to persuade the people concerned to accept the national wage agreement; that he will be able to indicate to them that the Government are so anxious to have this national agreement accepted that they are prepared to tie the banks to it. But, in fact, the legislation as drafted leaves the Minister and the Government in a position to accept an agreement by the banks and their officials which will, in fact, be higher than the national wage agreement but, perhaps, somewhat lower than they are now seeking. The Minister having decided that the national wage agreement should be accepted at this stage —he just says this without embodying it in law; he knows well that if he puts it into legislation he has no way out—is leaving a way out for an eventual settlement with the banks which will be higher than the national wage agreement at a time when that agreement may have been accepted by a majority of the other workers of the country.
I should like to add my appeal to that of Deputy Fitzgerald to the Minister to take the opportunity now presented to him to demonstrate the quality which he says he has of having an open mind and not being tied rigidly to the brief he is given.
The Minister stated on a number of occasions that the objective of the Bill is to ensure that the pay of bank officials—I am not quoting him exactly—conforms generally to the terms of whatever national norm emerges, but he is overlooking the fact that to proclaim what the objective is is one thing but to provide differently in legislation is another. I understand very well what the Minister's difficulty in this is. I want to make it clear that we are not trying to tie his hands or those of the negotiators in the dispute rigidly in any way. The formula which might be used is that which was used in previous legislation on this matter.
I notice that section 1 of the 1975 Act refers to general adherence to national agreements, among other provisions. If the Minister were prepared to do so, we are prepared to agree to a short adjournment of the House to enable the Minister's officials to draft an amendment which would conform with the Minister's requirements but which would also ensure that the order to be made in the first instance under the Bill would not be one freezing the pay of bank officials to its present level, possibly up to the end of November. The object which the Minister has proclaimed time after time is the same as ours. We are under no illusions that the members of the IBOA would welcome being tied to the national pay agreement, if it is accepted. Consistently they have made it clear that they object to being tied in that way. Indeed, I understand they have legal proceedings under way in that direction.
That is not the issue. The issue is that this House has twice in the past recorded its view that the terms of the current national pay agreement should in general be applied to the remuneration of bank officials. That is still the view of this House, as demonstrated in this debate. Why is it not possible for us to ensure by amendment of this section that that purpose is achieved, that that purpose and agreement of this House are demonstrated without tying the hands of the Ministers or the negotiators rigidly? I am quite sure it can be done, particularly by reference to previous Bills on this matter. We on this side have consistently demonstrated our support for this approach. We have not sought to play politics in the past as we might have done in regard to previous legislation brought in by the Minister, and we are not seeking to do so now.
I do not in any way want to appear to be offensive but the Minister has been abroad and has come back and has had to face this problem and the terms of this legislation which must have been prepared in his absence. I appreciate that he has particular difficulties about which he cannot talk at the moment but I suggest to him strongly that it would be better from the point of view of any action he may have to take subsequently in the context of the dispute if it could be demonstrated that in that action he had the unanimous support of the House, which he can have without being in any way rigidly tied down. I urge him to give serious consideration to what I have said, that the House might adjourn briefly to enable his advisers to draft an amendment to this section which, having regard to the terms of the debate, would meet the requirements of both sides of the House.
I do not wish to appear to be ungrateful to the Opposition when I say I do not see much point in adjourning the House. I have already explained my opinion of the amendment by the Opposition, that it would not be helpful in present circumstances, that it would not assist the objectives of the legislation the Government have brought before the House. I assure Deputy Colley that his remarks were not taken as being offensive—that I have been away for some days and that I might not be acquainted with the terms of the legislation. I accept that we might say about an opponent that somebody may not be aware of certain things— this is conventional and appropriate— but I assure the Deputy that I have kept a very close interest in this matter, that I have been very closely in touch with the officials of my Department, though I was away. I am not trying to score a point when I say that I am satisfied that at the present juncture this is the best instrument available to assist in the present difficult situation.
I do not think the amendment would serve the interests of any Members of the House in our united desire to ensure that the banks do not close. I do not think the Opposition, on reflection, can believe this amendment would avert the closing of the banks or, indeed, that the acceptance of it would bring nearer the objective set out in the Bill, that whatever terms are finally agreed on in the banks would conform with the terms of the national pay agreement.
Though I would accept and always have accepted any reasonable comment from the Opposition, I do not see much advantage in accepting this amendment. I thank Deputy Colley for his offer of an adjournment but I do not think it would be helpful in present circumstances to spell out such a suggested provision in legislation of this kind when one has to take into account that we have not as yet got a national agreement. The JIC negotiations are still continuing and will resume tomorrow at 11 a.m. It is important that we get through this legislation as rapidly as possible and I would, therefore, ask the Opposition to withdraw their amendment.
It is interesting to note that the Minister has gone on record as saying this is his legislation and that he was fully aware of what was in it.
I would not be in the post I am in if I accepted legislation with which I was not acquainted.
Therefore, the Minister takes full responsibility for the terminology of the Bill. We endeavoured to moderate what we considered to be an extreme action in an extreme Bill. We consider that the amendment would moderate what we consider to be extreme in the Bill. When a Government take extreme action they can create a reaction, and that is why we think the Bill in its present form will not be helpful. Our amendment would ensure that an extreme reaction may be avoided. When extreme action is initiated by a Government, there is a tendency towards an extreme reaction. It is my feeling that the framing of this Bill is an extreme action by the Government and we are asking that they moderate it so that the reaction will be moderate and co-operative. We fear that this Bill will make the solution of the problem much more difficult. It was with that in mind that this amendment was put forward.
May I comment briefly on the Minister's statement about tomorrow's talks? I welcome the fact that they are continuing and sincerely hope they will be fruitful.
I would like to express my disappointment at the Minister's nonacceptance of this amendment. I find it difficult to understand his nonacceptance because he appeared to convey that this was the kind of end product he desired. To me this seemed a far less tough approach than that adopted in this legislation. Deputy Colley offered the rewording of the amendment and everybody knew the spirit in which it was offered.
I heard the Minister say on every measure we debated since I became spokesman for Labour that he was always willing to accept amendments from the Opposition, unlike his predecessors who are now on this side of the House. I have yet to see his sincerity in that respect. I am sure he will forgive me for questioning his sincerity because when he did accept the amendments he gave the credit for them to his backbenchers. I accept that that is irrelevant, but I wanted to answer the point he made which sounded so sincere. I hope he will even yet accept these amendments. If not, we are not prepared to withdraw them and want to put them before the House.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 66; Níl, 63.
Tá
- Barry, Peter.
- Barry, Richard.
- Begley, Michael.
- Belton, Luke.
- Belton, Paddy.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Dick.
- Burke, Joan T.
- Burke, Liam.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlan, John F.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick M.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Declan.
- Coughlan, Stephen.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Dockrell, Maurice.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Donnellan, John.
- Enright, Thomas.
- Esmonde, John G.
- Finn, Martin.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Halligan, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Patrick.
- Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Keating, Justin.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- L'Estrange, Gerald.
- Lynch, Gerard.
- McDonald, Charles B.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Malone, Patrick.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, John L.
- Pattison, Seamus.
- Reynolds, Patrick J.
- Ryan, John J.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Spring, Dan.
- Staunton, Myles.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Toal, Brendan.
- White, James.
Níl
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Brosnan, Seán.
- Browne, Seán.
- Brugha, Ruairí.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callanan, John.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Carter, Frank.
- Colley, George.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Cronin, Jerry.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Dowling, Joe.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Farrell, Joseph.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
- O'Connor, Timothy.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Power, Patrick.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Flanagan, Seán.
- French, Seán.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Gibbons, Hugh.
- Gibbons, James.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Herbert, Michael.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Leonard, James.
- Loughnane, William.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Meaney, Tom.
- Moore, Seán.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Murphy, Ciarán.
- Nolan, Thomas.
- Noonan, Michael.
- Timmons, Eugene.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kelly and Patti son: Níl, Deputies Lalor and Brown.
Question declared carried.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
Our main objection to this Bill is built into the powers being given to a Minister under section 3. The fact that a Minister may from time to time between now and 30th November order a prohibition of the payments by banks to their employees and prohibit the making, implementing or continued implementation by the banks of any amendments or variation of the other conditions of employment basically means a mandatory pay pause. Power is being given to a Minister whereby he can freeze wages in a certain section of the community for a given period. The Minister has put in a section to cover the employees or officials of banks other than the associated banks. There seems to be an injustice here in the sense that those working with the associated banks and those working in the other banks are not on a pay parity. Yet he may avail of the same powers in that regard.
This is dangerous legislation. Earlier today we pointed out that this Minister and his party have shown a complete departure from the stand they have consistently taken when in Opposition. I quoted the Minister for Local Government, Deputy Tully, as saying that he would oppose with tooth and nail, any legislation repressive to workers. He has used neither tooth nor nail on this occasion. If he wishes to achieve anything, he must make an order holding wages at the 1975 agreement level with the modifications carried out in June of this year. These modifications were a reduction in the phased increases allowed under the 1975 agreement. There is no way this Minister can say that this order is anything other than a wage freeze. This is our basic objection to section 3. We submitted an amendment which the Minister did not accept. In the circumstances, our opposition to this section is outright.
In view of the discussion we have had on the amendment to this section and of the Minister's persistent refusal to accept even the principle of the amendment, we have to view this section in the light of what it says. I pointed out that the Minister has talked about the objectives of the Bill on a number of occasions and, in particular, the objectives of this section. The Minister says that the objective is not relevant in any way to the manner in which this section will be interpreted. What the section contains is relevant. The section contains a provision for the Minister to make an order. The only order he can make under this section—and he has confirmed this—is an order which freezes the pay of bank officials to their present level. The section does not allow him the flexibility to make any other kind of order as we had sought to give him. He insists that, if he makes any order under this section, the first order must be one freezing the pay of bank officials.
Earlier in this debate the Minister, by making some vague references to other legislation, endeavoured to suggest that he and his colleagues—in his own party, at any rate—have been consistent in their approach to matters of this kind. Indeed, he suggested that he and his party accepted the principle of legal intervention in free collective bargaining. Nothing could be further from the truth. Earlier today I quoted a number of statements made by members of his party on the Bill which was before us in 1970. The Minister seemed to think that because the Bill included provisions not alone in connection with prices and incomes of all kinds but incomes across the board it made a difference. I will tell the Minister the difference it makes. That legislation did not propose a wage freeze. In this Bill the Minister is providing for a wage freeze.
In the context of that legislation which provided for increases, unlike this section, I should like to refer once more to what was said by the present Minister for Industry and Commerce at column 1535 of the Official Report of 17th November 1970. He said: "As a matter of principle, I have objections to any interference with free collective bargaining." Other of his colleagues said the same thing. Where are those principles now? Does the Minister suggest that this section is not interference with free collective bargaining? If words mean anything, this section is going much further than interference with free collective bargaining. It is giving power to the Minister to impose an actual freeze to prevent any increase by power of law in the remuneration of bank employees and to enforce that up to 30th November next. There is nothing to prevent the Minister bringing in amending legislation to extend that period, as has been done by his colleagues in relation to a number of other matters.
In this section the Minister is asking us to approve that he should be given power to impose a pay freeze up to the 30th November next, at least, in relation to the remuneration of all bank employees. There is no point in telling us that is not the Minister's intention; that it is not the objective of this section. That is what this section provides. In our amendment we gave the Minister an opportunity to ensure that there could be no misinterpretation or misrepresentation of the purpose of this section but he refused it. We made it clear to him that acceptance of that principle would have removed all objections to the content of this Bill, not, as Deputy Fitzgerald said, to the manner in which the matter has been handled. It would have made this Bill conform to the previous Bills which we have supported. We are left, therefore, with this section which goes to the root of our objection to this legislation. I hope it will be made crystal clear to everybody concerned that we primarily object to this section because it gives power to the Minister to impose a wage freeze.
It is true that a subsection of this section gives power to the Minister to revoke that wage freeze but so far he has not answered the reasonable question put to him which arises acutely on this section, that is, that if there is no national pay agreement and if the Minister has made an order under this section imposing a wage freeze on bank officials what, then, does he propose to do? When I asked him earlier on subsection (1) the significance of the date, November 30th, he said its only significance was that it was expected by that date that the national norm for wage increases would have arisen. That suggests that it is by no means unreasonable to envisage that under this section the Minister would make an order freezing at their present levels the remuneration of bank officials and that he would make no order to revoke that freeze prior to November 30th next because, according to him, it is conceivable that it will take up to then for a norm to emerge.
Whatever view the Minister may hold in relation to this section and whatever he or his colleagues may say about their attitude to free collective bargaining, we on this side of the House cannot accept a proposition that this or any other Minister should be entitled to impose by statute a wage freeze on one section of the community. Consistently, by our words and our actions, we have made it clear that while we wish to see free collective bargaining we recognise that the national interest will sometimes require interference with that situation. This is a proposition which the Minister and his colleagues have never acknowledged publicly. If we had been obliged to bring in legislation of this kind, there is very little doubt but that the Minister and the Government would have opposed it tooth and nail on the grounds that it was an interference with free collective bargaining. However, we have never sought and never will seek to impose statutory control by way of a wage freeze on the remuneration of one section of the community. We consider it wrong in principle for the Minister to be imposing such a wage freeze. It is wrong in practice, too, and the Minister may find himself faced with further legal proceedings in regard to this section.
Deputy Fitzgerald has pointed out that the freeze provided for here applies not only to employees of the associated banks but also to the employees of other banks. I understand that employees of the nonassociated banks in the main are not members of the IBOA. The point is that the level of remuneration sought to be enforced under subsection (7) is determined by agreements entered into by the IBOA. In these circumstances it would appear that we are to have a further extension of the situation in which people who are not parties to an agreement will find themselves bound by statute to such agreement.
In certain circumstances the national interest requires that people who are not parties to a national agreement be bound by statute to that agreement, that is, an agreement to provide for an increase in their remuneration but an increase which is related reasonably to the requirements of the economy. That is the view we have taken in the past, the view we have supported by our votes and by our voices but it is not the proposition which the Minister is asking us to accept in this section. Rather, he is asking us to accept the proposition that he should be given the power to make an order, when he so decides, to freeze at their present levels the pay of all bank officials and that he would not be obliged in any circumstances legally to review such an order. He will tell us it is his intention to deal with the situation when national norms emerge but he has not spelled out what he would do in such circumstances. Would he revoke the order or would he amend it? Subsection (4) gives him power to amend it but to what extent will he have power legally to amend it?
What kind of amendment does the Minister think would be made having regard to the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) that the order prohibits the payment of remuneration beyond present levels? What advice has he got on this question? Is he advised, for instance, that subsection (4) will enable him, if necessary, to make an order which would specify a certain level of remuneration and of conditions of employment? I have some doubts in this regard in so far as the terms of subsections (1) and (2), which are specific, are concerned. The meaning of the word "amend" in subsection (4) may not be as wide as it would have been if these two other subsections provided for some level of increase but since they provide for no increase the meaning of the word "amend" in subsection (4) may well be restricted. In any event, the Minister has not given any indication so far of what would be his intention in the event of a national norm emerging. He has not told us precisely how he would propose, under the terms of this section, to deal with such a situation.
Even more important, perhaps, is the question of what he would propose to do in the event of there being no national pay agreement. This phrase of a national norm emerging in the event of there being no national pay agreement may sound a feasible proposition but the Minister must know that the term covers a multitude of difficulties as to how such a norm would emerge. Is it to be on foot of a free for all or is it to be determined by the success attending the industrial action of the strongest groups in the country? Is it to be related to the weakest groups or is it to be a norm prescribed by the Government? We are entitled to have some indication of the thinking of the Minister and of the Government in this regard when we are considering the very detailed and serious provisions of section 3 before us.
It is not quite fair, certainly not accurate, to remark on speeches made by Deputies when in opposition, on measures proposed at that time totally different to the measure before us because the measure before us simply seeks to ensure that one section gets the same as all other sections. That is the basis of intervention in this legislation, which is similar——
As a matter of principle, I have objections to any interference with free collective bargaining. I do not think the Minister can interpret that in relation to this Bill.
I am just making the point that the measure about which the Deputy is talking is a totally different one from that before us.
But it does not affect the meaning of those words.
The measure here simply seeks to bring about a situation where the figure arrived at for this section of people corresponds to that arrived at for others, seeks to be in conformity with that achieved by others in whatever bargaining situation exists at the time. That is the objective of this legislation. I do not think it profitable either to follow Deputy Colley into the future as to what may or may not be the situation after consideration of the terms of the national agreement because all of these are matters in respect of which, at this time, it is better that we rein our speculation and simply stick to the job in hand. The job in hand and with which we have been dealing today is one in which we seek, in an area in which there has been a good deal of difficulty in the past, to ensure that the terms negotiated and gained by the people in that sector should correspond to those gained by others in whatever circumstances obtain.
The Deputy asked questions about the way this would operate. I thought its overall simplicity was one of the points in favour of this legislation which, being a temporary measure, simply holds a situation in that area, that situation having been defined, until the point was reached at which that conformity to the general pattern would apply. Therefore the only power sought under the section is to hold the situation until that conformity would have been freely negotiated.
Does the Minister mean he will have an order in force under subsection (1) or (2) and will hold it in force until an agreement is entered into between the parties——
That is conceivable.
If he is satisfied it conforms.
That is conceivable. It certainly holds the position for the present and allows the parties to continue negotiations. Despite present difficulties I have no doubt that a number of people on both sides of these negotiations have regard to the national interest and would seek to ensure that there is conformity to what others might seek. This section gives me, at any rate, all the power I need to ensure that this happy event should take place. Our recent experience would suggest that these possibilities for free settlements can be assisted in this area by a measure of this kind. That has been our experience in the recent past and I have no doubt will be under this section as well.
In his contributions to date the Minister has ignored completely the position arising under subsection (2) of section 3 where an entirely different situation prevails. If he tries under subsection (1) to get away from what is being imposed here —that is, a wage freeze—then it becomes ever more clear under subsection (2) because then there is an entirely different situation. There is a group of people not catered for under the agreement defined in subsection (1). They are a group who are, as far as I am aware, represented by a Congress union. They are a group of people whose remuneration—and probably the terms as well—are considerably less favourable than those covered under this agreement. Perhaps the Minister could explain, because I am not quite sure, how their increases or remuneration have operated in the past, if their increases have been in line with the agreement mentioned in the section; or have they been in line with the national wage agreement? I am inclined to think that they have been in line with the national wage agreement within the framework of Congress.
Under this section the Minister may from time to time by order prohibit the payment by the banks, other than the associated banks, to their employees after the commencement of the order of remuneration at rates exceeding the rates of such remuneration agreed to by or on behalf of these banks and their employees on or before the 23rd June, 1976. If in the past these people got their increases within the framework of the national wage agreement, are they being debarred completely or can the Minister now, by order, impose an absolute wage freeze on them? What stage have negotiations reached regarding their present agreements? It appears to me that from yesterday the Minister has power to prohibit any further negotaitions by a union which operates within the framework of Congress.
This is dangerous legislation; it is dangerous power to give a Minister. I want the Minister to explain briefly to me the position of those people, the relationship to those involved in subsection (1). I believe that the powers being given to the Minister here are even more dangerous than those given in the other subsection. If the Minister does impose an order will it be a case of imposing one or two—an order covering those people under subsection (1) and a separate order for those under subsection (1)? It would appear to me that one order covering both of them in a blanket fashion could prove to be very unjust to those under subsection (2). I should like the Minister to elaborate somewhat on the position of those people.
From what I can gather it was the draftsman's suggestion that it should have this division. It was important to include the associated banks because the bank officials' association of course is also organised in that area and it would have been impracticable to consider legislation of this character which did not include the associated banks. For the Deputy's information, two orders would obviously be required here, the reason being that there is this common organisation in some of the associated banks. The Deputy also asked whether there could be a difference in time between the orders. Certainly we have to be a bit flexible in regard to the order being imposed and revoked. It is conceivable in certain circumstances that an order might be imposed and then revoked and there is a great deal of flexibility in relation to the imposition of the order under this section.
The Minister has missed the kernel of the problem. We are talking basically about banks other than the associated banks. The Minister is confused. He referred to the associated banks.
I was referring to both.
I was referring specifically to the other banks. The Minister said "the associated banks" but I think the meant the others.
Yes, I meant the others.
The IBOA represents some of these people and others are represented by one of the Congress unions. May I take it then there are two different agreements operating, the IBOA agreement in some, or in parts of some, and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions agreement operating in others?
We have always had this problem when talking about bank employees. There are categories who accept fully the national pay agreement, and always have done so, and I presume that situation will hold on this occasion too.
I am talking about bank officials now.
Anyone affiliated to the Congress unions will accept whatever comes from the national pay agreement and will conform to the general pattern.
If that be the case, then the Minister has power under this Bill to interfere and, in fact, deprive them of that right.
I have made it clear many times during this discussion that the objective of the Bill is to ensure that whatever wages and salaries increases are negotiated conform to the general pattern.
The answer to that is that our objectives are what we would all like to achieve and, while the objective may well be what the Minister says it is, to those of us who have examined this Bill that does not appear to be the objective. These powers are too widespread and, because they are, we are opposed to this section and our opposition is absolute.
I must confess I am not quite clear as to what is involved in regard to officials. One group organised in the IBOA could presumably be subject to an order under this section which would have the effect of freezing their remuneration at its present level. Does the Minister envisage that it could happen that officials who belong to the Congress union might at the same time not be subject to any order or does the Minister envisage the order made in respect of IBOA employees automatically applying to other employees as well?
We are not clear on this and we want it spelled out.
I am as clear as I need to be in this matter. If we are going to have this wrangling as to what is clear, then the inconsistencies belong to the Opposition side and it is their job to rid themselves of them.
We are asking questions and the answers are not forthcoming.
The answers have been forthcoming since early this morning, if the Deputy had cared to listen to them.
The Minister is getting nasty now.
I am not getting nasty. The order relates to associated and non-associated banks and our objective is to see the settlements conform with what is obtained by the generality.
I do not think the Minister realises what he is seeking in this. He is seeking widespread power to make an order which will have the effect of preventing, with the force of law, certain people from getting any increase in remuneration possibly up to the end of November next. We are entitled to ask the Minister how he envisages exercising such power. I have asked this question already and I have not yet got an answer. Does the Minister envisage making at the same time an order affecting members of the Congress union or does he envisage a situation in which there would be an order only in respect of the IBOA and not in respect of the other union?
The position is that the orders will relate to settlements in this area in the case of both the associated and the non-associated banks and the objective is to ensure the settlements conform to the general average.
That does not answer the question. Is the Minister taking power under this Bill that may well entitle him to deprive members of the Congress union of their normal national increase under a national wage agreement? It is a usurpation of democracy that such a right should be given to any Minister and this appears to me to be the position.
That power is there.
There would be no opposition to any settlement in conformity with the general average.
That does not take away from the fact that the Minister's colleagues will give him this power with their feet in the division lobby.
The hour is late now and the Deputy does not have to make these ridiculous statements.
Ridiculous or not, this power is in this section. This is the power the Minister is seeking. Does he deny that?
Be realistic now.
Perhaps the Minister is trying to say he does not intend to do what we suggest he can do under this section, but that is not what is relevant. What is relevant is this power he is seeking. I do not know if the Minister realises he is seeking it. It is not clear from his approach whether he really understands the section himself but it is quite clear, when one reads the section, that the Minister is seeking power not only to make an order which will legally prevent any increase in remuneration for some bank employees, who are not prepared to accept a national pay agreement, if it emerges, but he is also seeking power here to make an order prohibiting an increase in remuneration for those who do accept the national pay agreement, if it emerges. That is a fact. This is the power he is seeking. How he intends to exercise it is another matter, but would the Minister deny that this is the power he is seeking in this section?
The power relates to settlements. It may be a relic of former days but Opposition Deputies should avoid this irritating habit they have of thinking they can read more into legislation than either I or my officials are aware of. It is not my fault if Opposition Deputies throughout the day have wrapped themselves in obscurity and if, at the end of the day, they are there still as inconsistent as they have been throughout the day. That is not my fault. They are now in shreds trying to explain their ridiculous opposition to this Bill.
These bland remarks by the Minister are all very well but he is having specific points put to him on section 3, which is now before the House. He is demonstrating either that he does not know what section 3 is about or that he is not prepared to explain it. He has got every opportunity to explain it. We have put to him what we think section 3 is doing. If we are wrong the Minister could get up and point out that because of the wording of this section that it is not so; but he is not attempting to do that. He has simply made bland assertions.
Since the Minister is adopting this attitude may I draw his attention and that of the House to the actual wording of subsection 2 of this section? It states:
The Minister may from time to time by order—
(a) prohibit the payment by the banks (other than the associated banks) to their employees, after the commencement of the order, of remuneration at rates exceeding the rates of such remuneration agreed to by, or on behalf of, these banks and these employees on or before the 23rd day of June, 1976, and ...
That, in the main, would appear to relate to non-members of the IBOA. It would appear to give the Minister power to make an order freezing the pay of non-members of the IBOA at the level which obtained on 23rd June, 1976. Maybe it does not do that. If it does not would the Minister tell us why it does not or that it does not? Let him stop this nonsense of making bland assertions of, first of all, his intention and, secondly, his inability or unwillingness to answer questions on these very serious and grave powers he is seeking from the House.
I suggest, if the Minister wants to have any semblance of retaining the reputation for reasonableness which he believes he has, he has an opportunity now to do so, but he is fast casting that away from him. I ask him once more to tell us does subsection (2), in conjunction with the rest of the section, mean that the Minister is seeking powers by order to freeze at its present level the remuneration of bank employees who are not members of the IBOA?
The powers sought here are sufficient to ensure that settlements reached in associated or non-associated banks will conform with those generally obtaining in the rest of the community. Those are the powers sought here. Those are my objectives. I explained them earlier this morning in my Second Reading speech. I have been saying it all day. It is not my fault if at this hour of the night Deputy Colley is forced to explain by these ridiculous tactics why he has kept his foolish party here during the day on this ridiculous mission of opposing a measure that is important in the national interest. That is the Deputy's problem, not mine.
The Minister voted against the national pay agreement.
It is a descent into demagoguery, as I said today, by a former Minister and it is a shameful exercise in that.
(Interruptions.)
This Bill has been brought in by an incompetent Minister.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister's attitude is typical of what we have come to expect from him whenever he is in the House on any specific measure. He starts with a tirade against the Opposition in an effort to cover his own incompetency and in an effort to cover himself because of the lack of research he has done into the measures he has introduced. Today we have been reasonable and responsible but he goes ranting and raving when he is pushed on points and charges everybody with all these irresponsible allegations, questions and points. We had a Second Stage reading of this Bill pushed on us. We had an absolutely unresearched contribution from the Minister at the opening of this Stage where no effort was made at all to explain what is contained in the Bill.
It was the worst ever seen in the House.
The reasons are obvious. While this Minister sits in the House tonight trying to defend his Government's decision to have a wage freeze, in the south of the city one of the regional councils of the Labour Party are meeting. They are discussing the position of the Labour Ministers and their continued participation in the Government. The Minister can deny that if he wishes or shake his head.
It is as relevant as some of the other matters which the Deputy has referred to.
The Minister asked for it and he will get it.
Who spoke about the meeting of the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party? Who introduced that? The Minister should not object if Deputy Fitzgerald talks in those terms.
For the Deputy's information it was the first intimation I got of his opposition to this measure. The Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party made a statement, which is inconsistent with the opposition he made today.
It is totally inconsistent.
(Interruptions.)
Again, to explain what little head the Minister has, and how short his memory is, his last reference to the Fianna Fáil Party was a derogatory reference to Deputy Colley having to explain his stand to the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party.
There is inconsistency in the statement made and that of the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party.
Will the Minister let me finish and tell him that on the agenda at that meeting tonight he, with his colleagues, will be discussed? I will give the Minister a copy of the agenda if he wishes. This meeting is taking place while the Minister sits here annoyed at us exposing him for having somersaulted with his colleagues to stand over a Bill to freeze wages.
I must check the Deputy's ticket if he has an agenda of the meeting tonight.
It is all right.
It is. We can even tell the Minister who proposed and seconded that the Labour Party Ministers in the Government would be examined and told what they should do and how soon they should do it. It may be an effort by the Labour Party Ministers to try to continue to wear two hats.
This is irrelevant.
It is probably irrelevant but the Minister's attitude calls for it. I will continue until the appropriate time comes.
The Deputy has been ordered to keep talking.
Is there any chance the Minister will learn to do his job and learn that he is supposed to answer questions put to him on a Bill he brings before the House? Does he know that? Did anybody ever tell him that?
They have all been answered adequately.
The Minister does not know what the section is about. The sheer incompetence of him is breathtaking.
First of all, the Minister has continued, in my experience of him, to berate and to scream when he is put in the corner. He has continued to make those attacks whenever he is cornered on a section of a Bill that he either knows little about or has not researched. We are, for the first time, discussing in Committee section 3 of this Bill. When doing that we are surely entitled to ask questions. If it is a ridiculous piece of legislation it is not Deputy Colley's fault, Deputy Moore's fault or Deputy Fitzgerald's fault. The Minister said we are introducing ridiculous things.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister would like a rubber stamp.
They may be ridiculous points but we did not put them in the Bill that the Minister introduced today. The Minister is taking powers for himself. This means that if the members of ASTMS who represent some of the non-associated banks get a wage increase within the terms of the national wage agreement there is nothing to prevent the Minister from freezing such an increase because it was after 23rd June. That is the position, ridiculous as it might be. We did not put it there. If I am wrong the Minister should tell me but he should not tell me I am irresponsible or ridiculous. I am sick hearing that from some of the most incompetent Ministers. If I am wrong the Minister should explain how this is so. It appears to me that the Minister is taking powers for himself. Power can go to a person's head. It can be dangerous to give power to people and I certainly would not like to have such power given to me. The Minister should explain the position; he should not display such brashness and arrogance. If we are wrong we will admit it. It is not important whether the Minister uses the power. He should not get it.
Acting Chairman
Is the section agreed?
No, it is not. Will the Minister please reply to the reasonable questions put to him?
I have replied.
The Minister has not replied. This is the arrogance one can expect from this Government. They have applied the guillotine far more often in three years than have all Fianna Fáil Governments since 1932. The Minister knows that all he has to do is to keep wasting time instead of answering the questions and automatically the Bill will go through with the aid of the Deputies behind him, including some decent Deputies such as Deputy O'Sullivan whom I suspect may not be fully aware of what the Minister is doing in this section. Of course, there are reasonable grounds for suspicion that the Minister himself does not know what he is doing in view of his inability to answer the reasonable questions put to him.
I will ask the Minister once more, and this time let us hope we will get a reasonable answer. It is possible to answer "yes" or "no" to this question, but the Minister has failed to do so up to now. For the Minister's benefit I will put the question to him again. Is he seeking power in this section to make an order that will have the effect of legally freezing the remuneration of members of a Congress union employed by the banks even though their union and Congress have accepted the terms of the national pay agreement? That is a simple straightforward question that can be answered by "yes" or "no". If the Minister wishes he can elaborate on it.
The section will enable me to ensure that settlements arrived at in this area conform with those obtaining elsewhere. That is the answer to the Deputy's question. If that does not satisfy him I am sorry that he must remain talking between now and 10 o'clock but that is his problem, not mine.
Are we to be subjected to this perennial incompetence and arrogance by the Minister for Labour just because he rushes home unprepared for this and apparently fighting with his colleagues, judging by the statement he issued last night, over what was done? Is this House to be subjected to this kind of incompetent treatment? It is utterly inexcusable that a Minister should come in here with a Bill like this seeking powers of this kind to impose a statutory wage freeze which he and his colleagues said they would never have anything to do with. The Minister is not even able to explain what is in the Bill. It is utterly incompetent, irresponsible and unacceptable——
The Deputy should try to avoid exciting himself. It is not my fault——
The Minister should try to do his job and nobody would get excited.
It is not my fault that the Deputy has landed himself in this ridiculous position. I have answered his question and there is nothing further I can add.
It is no wonder that this country is sinking when we see the approach adopted by the Minister. Before I came into the Dáil I heard of charges of arrogance being made not only by the Minister in this House but also by members of the press against some of our members. There has never been anything like the same kind of arrogance displayed by any individual as we have witnessed here in the last 15 or 20 minutes. We may ask why this is so. It is simply an effort to cover incompetence or the fact that the Minister has not studied his brief.
I will answer the question we put to the Minister but I will not answer it in the confused, half-truthful way the Minister has tried to answer it. The Minister is having powers conferred on him. He may have set out with the objective of getting through a piece of legislation. The legislation the Minister is trying to bulldoze through the House, with his silence and refusal to answer questions truthfully, may contain powers that may be unconstitutional. As Deputy Colley pointed out, the Minister is probably leaving himself open to this measure being taken again, as happened with regard to the measure we supported. If the Minister wishes we will amend the legislation now but he will not admit he is wrong.
The Deputy's previous amendment was not a very good effort.
That is typical of the Minister. One would think from some of the Ministers that they have a divine right to attack, ignore and snub public representatives who have been elected by their constituents. One would think nobody had a right to query points of legislation let alone offer a solution or a correction. In this section the powers that the Minister said were ridiculous are being given to him. The Minister is making every effort he can to camouflage the fact that we are talking about a pay freeze. No subsection in the Bill proves it more than does subsection (2).
I will not delay the House for long because it is clear at this stage, either for reasons of arrogance or incompetence, that the Minister is unable or unwilling to answer reasonable questions on the details of this section. That being so there is no point in our pursuing the matter or trying to deal with the legislation before the House in the way it is the duty of an Opposition to deal with any legislation and, indeed, in the way it is the duty of the Government to deal with it. I do not intend to waste further time on the matter. I want to say one or two things before I leave this section to the tender mercies of the Minister and the courts in due course.
The first thing I want to point out is that the Leader of the Minister's party, the Tánaiste, spoke, as did many of his colleagues on matters of this kind on another occasion. As reported at column 56 of the Official Report of 28th October, 1970, he said:
As far as this party is concerned and as far as the trade union movement is concerned, neither they nor we will ever agree to any measure which takes away the right to free collective bargaining.
The Minister thinks it is unfair to quote that, that it is related to another Bill. The words are clear and unambiguous. He said: "... will ever agree to any measure ..." not just that measure "... which takes away the right to free collective bargaining". It is the consciousness of that situation and the total breach of all the things the Labour Party said they stood for——
The Deputy does not know what we stand for.
——which has the Minister in the prickly humour he is in.
The Deputy does not know what we stand for and he never could.
How could he?
I may know a little more about it than the Minister thinks. What I have to rely on in this House is what is said by Members of the Labour Party. I quoted the Leader of the Minister's party. Perhaps the Minister wishes to repudiate what was said by the Leader of his party, which would not be surprising considering the Leader of his party repudiated himself. He said he would go to the back benches if there was a Coalition in which his party took part. He said it would be a democratic decision of his party but he would go to the back benches. He did not do that. He repudiated that, so I suppose it is no great problem for the Minister to repudiate another statement.
There is a quotation from the Minister himself in the House that he would align with Fianna Fáil only and not with Fine Gael in a Coalition.
We will forgive him for that.
That was an aberration.
It was a terrible aberration.
I am glad I never followed it through.
No chance of that. The Minister can rest assured of that. We are still bigger than that.
The Minister made a reference to our amendment a short time ago and he did not think much of it. We have striven as hard as we could, within the time limit imposed on us by the Minister and his colleagues, to amend this legislation to ensure that it provides that the national pay agreement, when it emerges, will apply to bank officials. On the other hand, the Minister is seeking in this section to apply a wage freeze to bank officials whether they are members of the IBOA or members of the Congress and unions concerned. That is the difference and, if the Minister thinks his position is superior to ours, he is welcome to his view.
Question put.
In my opinion the question is carried.
On a point of order, how can you arrive at that opinion because nobody said "Tá"?
Not even the Minister.
Acting Chairman
In the Chair's opinion the question is carried.
Votáil.
The Committee divided: Tá, 69; Níl, 64.
Tá
- Barry, Peter.
- Barry, Richard.
- Begley, Michael.
- Belton, Luke.
- Belton, Paddy.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Dick.
- Burke, Joan T.
- Burke, Liam.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Clinton, Mark A.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlan, John F.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick M.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Declan.
- Coughlan, Stephen.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Dockrell, Maurice.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Donnellan, John.
- Enright, Thomas.
- Esmonde, John G.
- Finn, Martin.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Halligan, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Patrick.
- Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Keating, Justin.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- L'Estrange, Gerald.
- Lynch, Gerard.
- McDonald, Charles B.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Malone, Patrick.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, John L.
- Pattison, Seamus.
- Reynolds, Patrick J.
- Ryan, John J.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Spring, Dan.
- Staunton, Myles.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Toal, Brendan.
- White, James.
Níl
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Brosnan, Seán.
- Browne, Seán.
- Brugha, Ruairí.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callanan, John.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Carter, Frank.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Cronin, Jerry.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Leonard, James.
- Loughnane, William.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Meaney, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Murphy, Ciarán.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Dowling, Joe.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Farrell, Joseph.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
- Flanagan, Seán.
- French, Seán.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Gibbons, Hugh.
- Gibbons, James.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Herbert, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
- Nolan, Thomas.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Connor, Timothy.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Power, Patrick.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Timmons, Eugene.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kelly and Pattison: Níl, Deputies Lalor and Browne.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
This section sets out the penalties to be imposed on those found guilty of offences under the Act. Penalties will be in the form of fines. Those found guilty of an offence under the Act will be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £400, while those found guilty, on indictment, of a more serious breach of the Bill's provisions will be liable to a fine not exceeding £10,000, together with, in the case of a continuing offence, a fine not exceeding £10,000 for each day upon which the offence is committed.
I would like to point out to Deputies that a feature of this legislation, which was not in previous legislation in this area, is that if a person convicted under the Act fails to pay the fine imposed on him he will not be liable to imprisonment. It is proposed instead that the court which convicts him may direct that payment of the fine be secured by the sale of property of the person concerned.
In regard to the seizure of property, presumably by the sheriff or county registrar or whoever it may be, what property is it contemplated they will seize? Will it be the funds people have invested in the bank? What safeguard is there in the event of bank funds being seized in such a situation?
The subsection on property gives some details.
Shares, debentures. Whose shares and whose debentures?
Those of the person fined, obviously.
His own personal shares?
Yes, of course.
In other words a bank director, a bank manager or a bank pay clerk. Who would it be?
It would be in respect of those people, yes. Officers of the bank not obeying these provisions.
Is it the banks' property or his own personal property?
The fine is imposed in respect of his position as officer of the bank refusing to carry out the provisions of this legislation. It is as an officer of the bank that the fines would be exacted.
It is from the officer?
As an officer of of the bank.
From the bank, in other words. So the property seized could be shares, yours, mine or anybody else's.
It would be as bank fines they would be imposed.
Could it be furniture also?
Banks will not be relying on furniture.
I was thinking of families.
I emphasise that it is as officers of the banks that the fines will be imposed.
What about depositors' funds?
It relates to, as I said, officers of the bank and it relates to the property of the bank.
Could debentures and shares be held as security?
Only the estate captured by the security holder.
I do not get the point of the Deputy's question.
What about the funds held by the Central Bank? Will they be liable to seizure?
We have clearly indicated what the offence would be in this piece of legislation and here the section lays down the penalties. It is set out that it will be in respect of officers as officers of the bank and the section sets out some of the typical examples of the way this fine will be exacted.
This Bill has not been well drafted.
There is the same provision in previous legislation. We have all been through this already.
I accept that, but there is a vast difference between that legislation and this in that we have already found section 3 to be repugnant, to be objectionable, to be imposing very severe penalties, and giving new powers to a Minister, some of them ridiculous powers on the Minister's admission. In view of that we are concerned that there may be other faults, and we are concerned for the officers' personal position in the bank. Is there any way that an officer, acting in his capacity as a pay clerk or otherwise, who commits an offence under this Bill can have his own personal property affected? Paragraph (b), which describes the property that can be taken, includes even securities of any local authority.
Section 2, paragraph (a) uses the phrase "sale of the property of the person". Can the Minister guarantee that if a manager is convicted for an offence under this Bill his personal property will not be seized?
That is the person who is fined. Fines are in respect of the position of the person as officer in the bank.
I agree. He is fined because of his position in the bank, but his own property according to this subsection can be seized by the sheriff. Can the person's personal property be seized?
It includes shares, debentures and so on. It is listed in section 2 (b).
That is not important. I am not interested in the banks' assets. That is a different situation.
Yes, but the fines are in respect of his offence as an officer of the bank.
We all accept that, but the position is that the individual's personal property according to this, can be taken.
Certainly, the person should not break the law.
You can have a person in the position where he may be told to do something, and the Minister is now putting him in the position of either being sacked or else breaking the law.
The Bill will be published and the banks will be made fully aware of the contents. If an officer of the bank insists on paying employees beyond rates set down here after the passage of this Bill through both Houses of the Oireachtas he will be liable to the fines set out in section 4.
The question here is whether "person" in this section means the person simpliciter or whether it is the agent of the bank. If “person” means the person himself, it is not attached to his office, and therefore on the reading of this it is his personal property that is in question. On the other hand if the word “person” refers to him as an agent or officer of the bank, it is really the bank which is being penalised. There are probably precedents in regard to this kind of thing in company legislation, but I think it important to get clear in what capacity the word “person” is used here. Where it is the individual as a citizen that is committing a crime before the law he is in an individual position and his office is not affected. If on the other hand it is as agent of the bank that he is convicted, then in reality it is the institution which is involved. That point should be cleared up.
Where in the Bill does it state that it is as an agent of the bank that the person is to be penalised? We all know that, irrespective of what the Minister might say in the House when the Bill is passing through and irrespective of what interpretation the Minister might put on any section of the Bill, when it becomes law it will be decided by a judge in court what exactly it means. Therefore, unless we are clear as to what is involved here we will have difficulties afterwards.
If it should ever arise that these provisions would require to be invoked, if an officer of the bank decided to break the law, the subject matter of his contravention of the law would be his decision that certain employees should be paid over a certain level and presumably he would not be making that as a personal decision. It would relate to a category of employees. Presumably, it would be a decision of the bank of which he was an officer and in these circumstances it is the bank that would, of course, pay the fine. It is inconceivable that an individual acting on his own would make such a decision which would lay his own personal property open to seizure. Obviously, he would be acting as an officer of the bank and it would be on the bank that directed him to make the decision that the fine would be imposed and it would be the bank in question that would pay.
Suppose a bank employee accepts an increase in salary, that is above the prescribed level, is he breaking the law?
No, there are no penalties against bank employees.
We shall come to that in a moment.
(Interruptions.)
In the Companies Act, for instance, certain penalties are applicable to and collectible from a company in certain circumstances. Penalties also apply to certain officers, say, the secretary of a company. If the secretary is convicted—Deputy Esmonde will correct me if I am wrong—under such a section and fined £200 it is the secretary who is liable for it. In practice the company will probably pay this fine but there is no liability on the company. As I read this section, unless we resolve the question specifically as to whether "person" refers to an agent or to the citizen personally, the liability as distinct from the practice under section 4 will be confined to the citizen, that is to the person. Whether or not the bank pays will be a matter of grace. The bank's assets will not be captured by the section at all.
Under section 6.
That is another matter. I am arguing on the wording of this section to clear up the point as to what the liability of the person is.
The Deputy should look at section 6.
I welcome Deputy Esmonde as assistant Minister for Labour. I am sorry he was not here when we were discussing section 3. I do not know if the Deputy himself realised the need for his presence or whether the Minister prompted him to come in. I welcome him because we had extreme difficulty in the last half-hour before the vote in getting any answers.
As I have said on other Bills, I am always here to help if the Deputy has any problems.
The Deputy is not getting my point, which is that before his appearance we found it extremely difficult to get answers.
We should get back to section 4.
I am prompted to comment on the section when I see the enthusiasm of no less than seven Fianna Fáil Deputies in expressing concern about the terms of this section with special reference to the proposed confiscation or seizure of certain assets, property or funds of bankers. It is no surprise to me but it must cause some surprise or some astonishment to people throughout the country coming from a party which showed so little concern about the proposed seizure of the property of landowners and farmers for certain breaches of the law some time ago. There was no stampede by Fianna Fáil Deputies to defend farmers or others at that time against their assets being acquired by the courts for a breach of the law. Here we see that party able and ready to step in in defence of the bankers. This causes me some concern because it leads me to believe that there must be a motive——
On a point of order, the Parliamentary Secretary is a recent arrival in the House; he has spent most of the day elsewhere.
A point of order, Deputy.
The point of order is this: I am not sure if the Parliamentary Secretary is aware of it but he is absolutely irrelevant. I should like to answer him but——
The Parliamentary Secretary must be allowed to state his point of view. He is in order.
There must be a reason for Fianna Fáil's anxiety about this section. I believe that they have a certain personal concern and fear because they feel that under this section Taca funds might be interfered with in some way. They are expressing fear and concern because it is well known that there are certain bankers associated with Taca. That is one reason why we have seven Fianna Fáil Deputies querying this section. Everybody knows that is so. They are afraid Taca funds will be confiscated or interfered with.
Deputy Flanagan's intervention at this stage is further evidence of the disgraceful filibustering and guillotining that is going on in this House. He knew when he stood up that we had only seven or eight minutes left to discuss this Bill on Committee Stage. There is nothing one can do when we have only two minutes left for this Stage. In other words, for the second time today we have the guillotine introduced by the Government. There is a section that I thought would be reached and which I believe should be questioned but it is obviously too late now.
I think a number of Deputies will agree that any action taken would be taken against a particular bank.
No; that is not clear at all.
(Interruptions.)
The position under company law would be——
(Interruptions.)
Order.
I believe that any action would be against the banks.
It is now 9 p.m. and in accordance with the resolution made by the Dáil this morning the Committee Stage must now be brought to a conclusion. I am, therefore, putting the following question: "That the Bill is hereby agreed to and is reported to the House."
Question declared carried.
There are no amendments for Report and we will now proceed to Fifth Stage.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
Throughout the day we on this side have opposed the Bill and I think it is significant that during that time there were few if any Government backbenchers behind the Minister. I doubt if many of them have read the Bill or if they are aware of the power they are putting in the hands of the Minister.
We have all read the Bill.
I am not so sure that all the backbenchers did. We object to this Bill and to the way it has been handled and particularly to the lack of time between Second Stage and Committee Stage. The section we mainly opposed was section 3 which gives power to the Minister to impose a mandatory pay freeze on a certain section of the community, the members of the IBOA as from 30th November. It also gives him ridiculous powers, as he himself described them, to freeze the pay of a congress union.
When did I say "ridiculous power"? It has been a long day but the Deputy's imagination is longer.
When the Minister lost his cool, he said that we were being ridiculous.
You have been.
If the Minister had the common decency to sit back and listen, he would have seen that we were not ridiculous. Section 3 empowers the Minister to impose a pay freeze on a legitimate member of congress, the ASTMS, members of the non-associated banks. At the moment they can go through the normal channels of the national pay agreement but the Minister is now giving himself power by order to stop that. Whether he uses that power is not important. The fact is that the Bill gives him that power and that is why we describe it as ridiculous.
We have pointed out our many reasons for opposing this. We were prepared to offer an amendment in Committee—it may have needed rehashing—and we still believe it would have improved the section. Of course, the Minister said our amendment was not good enough to meet the situation. I do not need to spell out again the comments of the Minister for Labour. We did not oppose the two previous Bills dealing with bank remuneration. Indeed, we supported them because they were tied up with the national pay agreement. Neither would we have opposed this one if it had been aimed in the same direction.
If our amendment had been accepted, it would have tied this legislation with the 1976 national pay agreement. No matter what the original objective of the Minister was, the fact is that this Bill imposes a pay freeze on selected groups of people, members of unions both inside and outside congress. That is the only interpretation one can put on the power being given to the Minister. It is not enough for him to say this is not what it will do. Excessive powers are being given.
At this stage I renew my appeal to those involved in the bank negotiations which will continue tomorrow. I appeal to them in the interests of the Irish economy to refrain from the action they propose. There are painful memories of the last occasion and I suggest that as a matter of patriotism they would at least postpone their threatened action for a few weeks. I have referred often to demonstrations by the Government of how not to use an industrial relations situation. I have spoken about a bull at the gate and a bull in a china shop to relate to the measures taken by the Government. Their action here virtually encourages the development of a strike action and this was triggered off by the recent speech by the Minister for Finance. It was highly significant that we had no attendance or contribution by that gentleman today.
I have said I hope the bank strike will not take place. I have expressed the hope that at least there will be a postponement and that, perhaps, this will lead to peace. What is important is that some members of the Government saw fit to come in here and talk ráiméis instead of realising the serious damage that had already been done to the economy by the millions of pounds which have already left the country. The desire of the Government to rush this legislation was prompted more by their anxiety to get away on annual leave than by the closeness of the bank dispute.
Our opposition to this Bill has continued. We regard the measure as being directed against a specific group of people and is doing something which the Labour Minister when on this side of the House, piously said should never be done. There are no kudos for any Government introducing repressive legislation in 1976. They have nothing to gain by guillotining measures they realise are not popular. I am satisfied that there are many backbenchers, especially on the Government side, who, if they realised the full implications of the power being given to the Minister, would not move into the division lobbies behind him. There has been a somersault by the Labour Party——
Remarks at this stage must be confined to what is in the Bill.
I appeal to the Minister to ensure that there is never a repetition of the handling of this industrial dispute because this is not the way to deal with such issues. We will never support pay or wage freezes and this is what we have here.
The Deputy is straying into policy areas he knows nothing about.
The Minister's remark has given me a new lease of life. With a little leeway from the Ceann Comhairle, I suggest that, in future, when the Minister is introducing legislation——
The Deputy has already got a lot of leeway from the Chair.
I thought the Deputy might be in trouble with the think-tank.
——that he study it first.
At least read it.
The Minister has a number of civil servants——
Give him a chance, he has to read it before he can——
I gave the Deputy friendly advice because I thought he was straying into an area he knew nothing about.
(Interruptions.)
Order. Let us get back to the final section of the Bill. What the Bill contains is all that is relevant at this stage.
The Deputy should learn to accept friendly advice.
I have referred to what the Bill contains. Let there be no doubt about it, this legislation being passed by the Minister for Labour contains a wage freeze for a selected group of the community. Can we anticipate what may happen in the coming months? As far as we are concerned, we will continue to oppose any measures of this nature he or his Government decide to introduce.
I am very strongly provoked to intervene in this debate when I hear the observations of the Fianna Fáil Labour spokesman expressing his concern on a Bill, which, as the Minister pointed out this morning, was for a limited period. Deputy Fitzgerald did not refer to that fact not that it will expire on 30th November, 1976, or maybe earlier. We all hope that this threatened strike will not take place and that wise counsel and common sense will prevail to ensure that the measures taken in this Bill will not have to be implemented.
Deputy Fitzgerald and his colleagues when speaking about the economy say one thing but what they feel in their hearts is different. Not alone are they hoping there will be a bank strike but that there will be a prolonged bank strike that will cause considerable inconvenience to the public. Fianna Fáil can then point the finger of blame at the Government and cause considerable confusion to the economy.
Is that in the Bill?
I have already asked that remarks be confined to what is in the Bill.
The Parliamentary Secretary does not know what is in the Bill.
If the sections in this Bill were to be implemented——
(Interruptions.)
If we are to judge by what was said on this debate today, the Parliamentary Secretary's remarks are in order.
(Interruptions.)
Order. The Chair decides such matters.
We are now on the final Stages of this Bill.
The Parliamentary Secretary must speak on what is in the Bill.
We may assume that the Minister's speech introducing the Bill is, in principle, completely contained within the Bill and I am, therefore, correct in referring to what he said this morning. He clearly stated that there are no penalties of any sort directed against bank employees or their representatives. When the Minister has given that undertaking this morning and we are about to pass a Bill which contains no penalties of any sort——
The Parliamentary Secretary must be joking.
Of course, it does.
There are no penalties——
(Interruptions.)
Order. Allow the Member in possession to make his contribution.
I do not often intervene in a debate but when I do I expect the protection of the Chair so that I can be heard. I accept the Minister's word. I have read the Bill. I know the provisions of the Bill and what it contains. I also know that there are no penalties of any sort directed against bank employees or their representatives.
Which is different to the Bill prepared by our predecessors.
There is nothing in this Bill that interferes with or cuts across the rights of any bank employee or official or their representatives. We should emphasise the fact that the implementation of this shortterm emergency legislation will not be necessary if common sense and intelligence prevail. I am speaking here for the record of this House to tell the bank officials and employees in my own constituency that there are no penalties of any kind against bank employees or their representatives in this Bill.
Read section 8.
If there are no penalties against bank employees in the Bill, where do Fianna Fáil's sympathy and concern lie? If the bank employees have nothing to fear from this Bill Fianna Fáil must be displaying concern for the bankers, the same people who were asking everybody to tighten their belts and accusing the Government of spending too much, making an appeal to the Government to spend less and to restrict to a greater extent spending in the interest of the economy. The same people who are asking the Government to pay out less and who are asking the public, in the interests of high efficiency, to accept less are the ones who are involved in this Bill. We hope to bring a degree of common sense and understanding to their minds.
Those people had nothing and have nothing to offer in relation to the economy, only to make suggestions. Some of them when speaking at dinners, parties and bankers' exhibition events could only say that the Government were responsible. The bank directors saw fit to point the finger of fault at the Government for everything that happened in connection with the economy and because of that here is their payment, their compensation, their recognition by a united stand of Fianna Fáil behind the bankers. It is the bankers that Fianna Fáil are so concerned with because there is no reason to display any concern on behalf of the bank employees. This Bill does not concern the employees.
On a point of order, it is a pay freeze against bank employees. The Parliamentary Secretary should read the Bill. He is nothing but a sanctimonious bluffer. Sit down and do not be bluffing.
It is hard to listen to the truth.
The Deputy must have read a blank bank sheet also.
I did not.
This Bill does not concern the bank officials or their trade union, it is directed towards the bankers. The Opposition to the Bill from Fianna Fáil is coming because of their sympathy for the bankers and because of their agreement with certain bank directors who saw fit to be critical of the Government's handling of the serious economic situation. This is Fianna Fáil's method of showing recognition and appreciation to bank directors who have shown a high degree of recklessness in so far as the handling of this situation is concerned. They have brought about the necessity for a Bill of this kind. It is clearly out of the bag that Fianna Fáil are the rich man's party, the big man's party, the director's party and, particularly, the party defending the bank directors. They are the only people they are showing concern for.
No penalties are directed against the employees of the banks. Deputy Fitzgerald said he was concerned about the economy and the serious position the economy is in. He expressed the hope that there would not be a bank strike because he felt that if there was the economy would deteriorate. Does he know—if he does not he should be told—that when he makes reference to the Minister for Labour or to the policy of the Department of Labour that the root cause of the deterioration of the economy was brought about by Fianna Fáil when they gave more pay and greater profit at a time when it was not recommended, or demanded. They gave more pay and greater profits for the purpose of winning two by-elections in Cork and Kildare. That is the cause of the deterioration.
It was the Arabs up to this.
It was brought about by Fianna Fáil purchasing votes in Kildare and Cork with complete disregard for the economy.
In spite of that we have people like Deputy Fitzgerald taking over the role of Simple Simon and telling us that he is concerned about the economy. Fianna Fáil could not and never did give two damns about the economy. There was an intervention in relation to the Department of Labour at a time when Fianna Fáil wanted to win two by-elections and they offered the workers more than the trade unions had asked. In fact, they insisted that the workers get more than the trade unions asked because it was on the eve of two important by-elections. They knew the way they could win those by-elections was to obstruct, cause confusion and wreck the economy. They played a big part in that.
The bankers have not shown the concern for the economy that is expected of responsible people. If the directors of the banking institutions were serious in their efforts in so far as the economy is concerned there would be no need for the Minister to introduce this Bill. Not alone did they not show any concern for the economy but they showed a high disregard for people who were primarily and principally concerned with seeing that the economy was kept on the rails and on the right line. Bank officials need not think that Fianna Fáil, because of their opposition to the Bill, are expressing sympathy with their efforts, wisely or unwisely, rightly or wrongly. Fianna Fáil's concern is with the directors of the banks. It is well known that many directors of the banking institutions are the custodians of the Taca funds which were used in the recent by-elections. That is the reason Fianna Fáil are so concerned with this Bill, the big man's party.
I have been a Member of this House for 20 years and it is the first time I have ever heard this sort of thing in the House on this stage of a Bill. All a Member can do on this Stage is debate what is in the Bill and nothing else. Surely the Chair is well aware of that.
I hear the Deputy's point of order and I have already made such statements.
Why allow the Parliamentary Secretary to continue on these lines? One hour was allotted for the Final Stage of the Bill and the Parliamentary Secretary was sent in to protect the Minister, and nothing else. It is a disgrace. The Parliamentary Secretary was sent in to blackguard this side of the House. Surely it is the duty of the Chair to control him.
Deputies have ranged pretty widely in this debate.
The Chair corrected me on the Fifth Stage.
And I corrected the Deputy in possession also. We must confine our remarks to what is in the Bill.
The bank officials have nothing to fear in this Bill. They are getting a fair crack of the whip, as they are entitled to, and the same as every other worker and every other organised trade unionist. I should like to ask Deputy Fitzgerald why are Fianna Fáil singling out the employees of the banks if they say they are concerned about all workers?
If the Parliamentary Secretary was here all day he would have heard that.
I am satisfied that there has been a tremendously high degree of hypocrisy on the part of Fianna Fáil today.
There has been more in the last half hour than I heard in my lifetime.
(Interruptions.)
Fianna Fáil are trying to hoodwink the bank officials in order to convince some of them, who probably do not think for themselves, that they are sympathetic. Everyone knows that this Bill will not hinder or affect any employee of the banks but it does affect the very people that Fianna Fáil are concerned about—the bank directors.
On the Fifth Stage of the Bill.
(Interruptions.)
Everybody knows that failure of the banks to comply with any order made by the Minister under the Bill will constitute an offence for which they will be liable to a heavy fine. There is nothing in this Bill to say that any employee of a bank will be liable to a heavy fine. The Fianna Fáil Party did not show the same concern for the farmers.
Order, order.
When they are in the Dáil, Fianna Fáil are the rich man's party but when they are in the country they are the poor man's party. Deputy Fitzgerald and his colleagues have taken the role of Lannah Maohree's dog: they go a bit of the road with everyone and the whole of the road with no one. The bank directors can rely on Fianna Fáil to fight their case.
(Interruptions.)
Order.
You had to blackmail the Taoiseach to get the last job.
Order, order. Personal imputation of that kind ought not to be made against a Member of this House.
A Cheann Comhairle, I must direct your attention to the allegation made by Deputy Lalor that I blackmailed the Taoiseach. I would ask the Chair to insist that Deputy Lalor withdraws that statement. Deputy Lalor knows that this allegation was published in a certain newspaper last October and that it is the subject of High Court proceedings. The date for the High Court proceedings has yet to be fixed. I am satisfied that Deputy Lalor's allegation justifies my action in taking proceedings.
It is a serious interjection and should be withdrawn.
If Deputy Flanagan says it is not the case, I withdraw.
On the Fifth Stage what is contained in the Bill is relevant now and nothing else.
Just before Deputy Lalor wrongly intervened, Deputy Fitzgerald commented on my prospects of becoming a minister as a result of this speech. I hasten to say that my prospects are much rosier than Deputy Fitzgerald's.
(Interruptions.)
Order, order. On the Fifth Stage, Deputy.
Fianna Fáil do not wish me to comment on the Bill because I am endeavouring to show the House the hypocrisy of the Fianna Fáil Party. Fianna Fáil do not want this legislation because it will impose severe penalties on people who are supporters of that party. Fianna Fáil have been sent in here by certain bank directors to obstruct the effort of the Minister for Labour to get this Bill through the House and to misrepresent the terms of the Bill. They cannot misrepresent the terms of this Bill. As the Minister and I have pointed out and as the Bill clearly indicates, there is nothing in any section or subsection of this Bill that any bank official in Ireland need fear.
That is a lie, a deliberate lie. Let the Parliamentary Secretary withdraw it.
There are no penalties in the Bill against bank employees.
(Interruptions.)
Unlike when the measure was prepared by Fianna Fáil. I have read the Bill. Not alone have I read it but I have studied it. I have heard the Minister's speech this morning. I have a copy of it in my hand, and may I quote from it. The Minister is here to vouch for the accuracy of the words I use. "There are no penalties——
Nobody would believe the Parliamentary Secretary.
(Interruptions.)
Order.
If I may now quote from the Minister's speech: There are no penalties of any sort directed against bank employees or their representatives.
"Representatives" means to me the trade union and organisation of which the bank employees are members. I accept the Minister's undertaking. Not alone do I accept that but——
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Calleary, please. Let us not forget the Fifth Stage.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, through you may I appeal against what I can only describe as the vulgar vocal interruptions from certain members of the Fianna Fáil Party who do not wish to hear the facts contained in this Bill, who wish to misrepresent the Bill and who also wish to conceal the fact that this is a Bill that will be of concern to bank directors who would have no fear whatever for the employees of the bank.
If he believes that he will believe anything.
Everyone, and particularly any responsible bank official in this country knows that this is factual. We have within this Bill, which I hope will be passed with the least possible delay to ensure that the bankers, profiteers or whatever they may be called will have to do no more or no less than any other employer——
On a point of order, is it correct for any speaker in this House to repeat himself about ten times in the one speech?
Repetition is not in order.
What is the little Minister afraid of that he brought his henchman to prevent anybody from saying on this side of the House anything on this section of the Bill?
An Leas-Ceann Comhairle
The Deputy has made his point of order. The Parliamentary Secretary.
He is doing very well.
I have not discussed this matter with the Minister for Labour. No one was responsible for bringing me here. I come here from a sense of duty, being paid for being here and for speaking, and furthermore being paid for speaking the truth and giving this House and the country facts, not to misrepresent as Fianna Fáil have endeavoured to do. I feel that it is only as a result of the Minister's speech this morning and my speech tonight that the bulk of the Fianna Fáil Party realise the contents of this Bill, because it is only now that some of the backbenchers are becoming vocal.
On a point of order, would it be right to clarify the point that the Parliamentary Secretary would still be paid if he did not speak?
I again remind the House that we are at the final stage of this Bill and the only comment which may be relevantly made is in respect of this Bill and of its contents.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
The Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I am sure, expresses sympathy with me in realising how difficult it is for one to make a contribution in the present turbulent conditions prevailing within the Fianna Fáil Party.
(Interruptions.)
On a point of order, would the Parliamentary Secretary at this stage, as he is telling us so much about banks, give us a talk on monetary reform? It might be appropriate.
Order.
I hope I am not foolish in presuming that I will be allowed to continue.
(Interruptions.)
Is it any wonder there are a lot of people laughing at the conduct of this House, which is being completely degraded by the Parliamentary Secretary, and that the duty is yours, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, to see that there is a proper debate?
Order please, Deputy. The Parliamentary Secretary on the Fifth Stage of the Bill.
Here we have a Bill produced and about to be passed, and it will be passed whether Fianna Fáil like it or not, and passed with the support of 95 per cent of the citizens of this country because they all realise——
We want to hear what the trade unions are saying about it.
——that legislation of this kind is deserved and necessary; but the grave concern of Deputy Fitzgerald and the Fianna Fáil Party tonight was how were the bankers going to pay the fine? He was not worried tonight to any extent about the bank employees, but the theme of his speech was completely and entirely focused on his concern and worry in relation to a section of the Bill as to how they were going to pay the fine for breaking the law.
On a point of accuracy I want that man who has been screaming his head off for the last half hour, without having read the Bill or a section of it, who has been put in here as the second disgraceful guillotine of this day in order to protect the Minister who has given up answering questions and who was not prepared to do so and has been misrepresenting what I said on this Bill all day—I want him to prove to me where I once referred to any fines on any bankers. It is a lie and I will prove it a lie.
I was present in the House and, despite the fact that I have been for 33 years a Member of the House this week, I have not reached the stage when my hearing has commenced to fail. I distinctly heard Deputy Fitzgerald querying the Minister for Labour——
Would the Parliamentary Secretary——
Not alone did he query the Minister for Labour himself but he sought assistance from his colleagues as to who was going to pay the fine when the fine was to be paid.
The Parliamentary Secretary will deal with what is in the Bill.
There is a section in this Bill relating to the payment of the fine as a result of the offence.
We are dealing with the Bill as a whole.
To me this is the main reason for the Bill. Who pays up when the law is broken? Would Deputy Fitzgerald? He is all concerned about who is going to pay. He is immediately presuming that there is going to be a bank strike next Monday. Not alone is the presuming there is going to be a bank strike but he is hoping there is going to be a bank strike. Who is going to be guilty of breaking the law? In this case he will be able to approach them in regard to the penalties imposed.
The Parliamentary Secretary will deal with the Bill as a whole.
Perhaps this has been a day of the greatest display of insincerity and hyprocrisy that we have ever had from Fianna Fáil.
The Deputy is an expert in both respects.
He is the crown prince of hyprocrisy.
It is not necessary for us to sit here and listen to him.
The Government had to listen to Fianna Fáil all day.
If I might interrupt the Parliamentary Secretary for a moment, I should like to know, having regard to the guillotine imposed by the Government on this debate, whether it is proposed that he or other members of the Government side who have been conspicuously absent all day intend to take up the remainder of the time.
In view of Deputy Colley's intervention I would not wish to prevent him from making a contribution to the closing stages of this Bill to which I shall listen very attentively in the hope that——
You will learn something.
—— the Deputy will admit that the Bill is purely for a limited period——
It is a wage freeze.
—— thereby indicating to us that even at this late stage of Fianna Fáil politics there is some degree of honesty left in that party.
This is a disgraceful performance.
The Parliamentary Secretary should keep to the Bill.
There are no penalties whatever directed against the bank employees in this measure.
We are now concluding this Bill and it appears that nobody on the other side wishes to speak. Although I did not ask Deputy Flanagan to intervene in the debate, I am very grateful to him for his contribution. During the day we have heard much unwarranted criticism of the provisions of this measure and I am surprised that the Opposition did not find it possible to listen to many of the points made by the Parliamentary Secretary, points which deserved to be put.
I regret that we have had the sort of contribution that emanated from the Opposition. A short while ago we had the fines section of the Bill. This was the subject of much of the Parliamentary Secretary's contribution. For the record I would advert to something to which I did not refer before today, that is, that in the legislation prepared previously in this area by the Fianna Fáil Administration they envisaged the laying down of strict penalties in respect of employees and their trade unions. That legislation was on my desk when I went into the Department in 1973. One can realise the inconsistency between the legislation prepared by the previous Administration and their attacks today on our legislation which does not include any provision for penalties in respect of employees or their unions. The object of this Bill is simply to ensure that any pay agreement negotiated by the banks and their staff will conform generally with the pattern of settlements emerging for other workers. This is the sole objective of the Bill.
On section 3 the Opposition tabled an amendment which sought to suggest that they would drop all their objections to the measure should we include a reference to a national wage agreement. Again, this is inconsistent with the position adopted by them yesterday when they declared publicly that their opposition to the Bill was based, among other factors, on its being introduced at a time when a national pay increase norm had not been established. The Opposition should decide exactly where they stand in the midst of all these inconsistencies. What has been remarked on during the day is that they have indulged in a blend of personal bullying and inaccuracy. It is obvious now that any reputation they may have had for responsibility in matters of this kind is in shreds.
This is a very interesting contribution.
They have taken pieces of this legislation totally out of context. This is the same party who, in legislation to deal with the ESB sought to prevent men going on strike. The result of that legislation in 1966 was that employees of that board were sent to jail but that within a very short time there was the farcical situation of their being bailed out and sent home in taxis which were paid for by the enterprise concerned. It is this Opposition who have the hypocrisy to criticise the legislation we are enacting today. Fianna Fáil are the casualties of the stance they have adopted in this instance. We are working for a peaceful settlement of the present industrial impasse in the bank situation. We are working for a solution that will avert the banks' closure on Monday. It is my belief that the measure we are proposing here will not be necessary, that it will be possible to bring about a settlement which will ensure that the remuneration of bank employees will be in conformity with the rates of pay of other groups of workers. That objective of the Government will be rendered easier of fulfilment once this measure has been enacted.
Question put.
The House divided: Tá, 69; Níl, 64.
Tá
|
Barry, Peter.Barry, Richard.Begley, Michael.Belton, Luke.Belton, Paddy.Bermingham, Joseph.Bruton, John.Burke, Dick.Burke, Joan T.Burke, Liam.Byrne, Hugh.Clinton, Mark A.Cluskey, Frank.Collins, Edward.Conlan, John F.Coogan, Fintan.Cooney, Patrick M.Corish, Brendan.Cosgrave, Liam.Costello, Declan.Coughlan, Stephen.Creed, Donal.Crotty, Kieran.Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.Desmond, Eileen.Dockrell, Maurice.Donegan, Patrick S.Donnellan, John.Enright, Thomas.Esmonde, John G.Finn, Martin.FitzGerald, Garret.Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).Flanagan, Oliver J. |
Gilhawley, Eugene.Governey, Desmond.Griffin, Brendan.Halligan, Brendan.Harte, Patrick D.Hegarty, Patrick.Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.Jones, Denis F.Kavanagh, Liam.Keating, Justin.Kelly, John.Kenny, Enda.Kyne, Thomas A.L'Estrange, Gerald.Lynch, Gerard.McDonald, Charles B.McLaughlin, Joseph.McMahon, Larry.Malone, Patrick.Murphy, Michael P.O'Brien, Fergus.O'Connell, John.O'Donnell, Tom.O'Leary, Michael.O'Sullivan, John L.Pattison, Seamus.Reynolds, Patrick J.Ryan, John J.Ryan, Richie.Spring, Dan.Staunton, Myles.Taylor, Frank.Timmins, Godfrey.Toal, Brendan.White, James. |
Níl
|
Allen, Lorcan.Andrews, David.Barrett, Sylvester.Brady, Philip A.Brennan, Joseph.Briscoe, Ben.Brosnan, Seán.Browne, Seán.Brugha, Ruairí.Burke, Raphael P.Callanan, John.Calleary, Seán.Carter, Frank.Colley, George.Collins, Gerard.Connolly, Gerard. Gogan, Richard P.Haughey, Charles.Healy, Augustine A.Herbert, Michael.Hussey, Thomas.Kenneally, William.Kitt, Michael P.Lalor, Patrick J.Leonard, James.Loughnane, William.Lynch, Celia.Lynch, Jack.McEllistrim, Thomas.MacSharry, Ray.Meaney, Tom.Molloy, Robert. |
Crinion, Brendan.Cronin, Jerry.Daly, Brendan.Davern, Noel.de Valera, Vivion.Dowling, Joe.Fahey, Jackie.Farrell, Joseph.Faulkner, Páraig.Fitzgerald, Gene.Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).Flanagan, Seán.French, Seán.Gallagher, Denis.Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.Gibbons, Hugh.Gibbons, James. Moore, Seán.Murphy, Ciarán.Nolan, Thomas.Noonan, Michael.O'Connor, Timothy.O'Kennedy, Michael.O'Leary, John.O'Malley, Desmond.Power, Patrick.Smith, Patrick.Timmons, Eugene.Tunney, Jim.Walsh, Seán.Wilson, John P.Wyse, Pearse. |
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kelly and Pattison; Níl, Deputies Lalor and Browne.
Question declared carried.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.10 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 29th June, 1976.